new statement (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter skybluesam66
- Start date
Kingokings204
Well-Known Member
Pretty strong stuff. Basically accusing duggins of lying and asking him to prove his comments. Seems very real now
Nick
Administrator
He has openly gloated about being able to get away with bullshitting and got away with it.
skybluegod
Well-Known Member
Fair play Dave Boddy ( who i assume has done this), he is absolutely right, yes Sisu have to take some blame, but so does the council. Strong message sent will be interesting to see a council response.
Nick
Administrator
"Drop the legal action and we will comment"
skybluegod
Well-Known Member
Surely it just leads to another legal case if they don't provide evidence?
Mr Panda
Well-Known Member
"Talk is cheap Councillor Duggins – please prove that it was only a four year commitment as you repeatedly suggest.
If Councillor Duggins can’t, he must immediately facilitate a new deal for CCFC to stay at its home, the Ricoh Arena."
Strong statement from the club. The cracks are deepening
If Councillor Duggins can’t, he must immediately facilitate a new deal for CCFC to stay at its home, the Ricoh Arena."
Strong statement from the club. The cracks are deepening
Nick
Administrator
You would think so.
Thing is though, they are quite comfortable that public opinion is fully with them so they can say and do whatever they want.
Alkhen
Well-Known Member
Bit cheeky but im at work and am struggling keeping up with all of today's events. Any chance someone has the time could maybe create a thread that bullet points anything new as it comes up. maybe lock it so its an overview that doesn't get bogged down and lost in posts?
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
Strong stuff maybe but nothing in there that isn’t correct. This is the type of thing we should have been seeing from the trust weeks ago instead of cosy meetings patting each other on the back.
skybluegod
Well-Known Member
Don't see them winning a court case though
Winny the Bish
Well-Known Member
Wasps and CCC get away with obfuscating CCFC & SISU. The owners are not the football club and vice versa. It's about time City came out with a statement shouting this from the rooftop and telling all parties, fans included, that the wilfull blurring they're involved in is what will kill Coventry City Football Club.
Nick
Administrator
Of course they put out statements making out that CCFC is SISU. That way people are cheering them on while they have digs at CCFC thinking it is them having digs at SISU.
It should have been like this from the start with the Trust going at each of them with stuff like this, pointing out contradictions etc with the aim being CCFC.
The Philosopher
Well-Known Member
As I said yesterday, the Court Case is about strategy & pressure on the individuals involved, not necessarily the legal position.
Litigation often results in both opponents arguments being reduced to rubble and a judge coming down somewhere in the middle to reflect this.
Councillors & political figures often have skin in the game with nothing to gain - only things to lose. It’s clear that the SISU tactic is now beginning to move to pressure on individuals.
If I were SISU I’d play this whole thing differently. I’ll elucidate:
SISU have (within their umbrella of companies):-
The name CCFC / Golden Share
And
On ongoing court case with a chance of winning a huge amount of money. It may be likely they lose, but nonetheless if they win they can claim for loss of revenues, potential revenues, opportunity cost and so on. (With this in mind I believe Wasps and CCC would be mad to evict CCFC again since there is a chance of further adverse liability being incurred. I’ll explain - even if the SISU chance of winning is only 10%, the potential damages may run in to the 10’s of millions. Wasps have to consider their creditor and shareholder interests, CCC the public purse)
Where I think SISU are playing this wrong:
Litigation often results in both opponents arguments being reduced to rubble and a judge coming down somewhere in the middle to reflect this.
Councillors & political figures often have skin in the game with nothing to gain - only things to lose. It’s clear that the SISU tactic is now beginning to move to pressure on individuals.
If I were SISU I’d play this whole thing differently. I’ll elucidate:
SISU have (within their umbrella of companies):-
The name CCFC / Golden Share
And
On ongoing court case with a chance of winning a huge amount of money. It may be likely they lose, but nonetheless if they win they can claim for loss of revenues, potential revenues, opportunity cost and so on. (With this in mind I believe Wasps and CCC would be mad to evict CCFC again since there is a chance of further adverse liability being incurred. I’ll explain - even if the SISU chance of winning is only 10%, the potential damages may run in to the 10’s of millions. Wasps have to consider their creditor and shareholder interests, CCC the public purse)
Where I think SISU are playing this wrong:
Last edited by a moderator:
JulianDarbyFTW
Well-Known Member
Wow. That is one hell of a statement. It's aggressive, occasionally unprofessional, and cuts right to the heart of the matter. As a fan I love it, as someone who works in a corporate environment and is used to more measured responses I'm cringing.
All I can think is that there will be litigation all over the gaff if the club does go tits up.
All I can think is that there will be litigation all over the gaff if the club does go tits up.
Last edited:
Liquid Gold
Well-Known Member
The only thing missing which should be there is
"If councillor Duggins wants to sort this out like a man I'll be at Broadgate 3pm on Saturday - no weapons"
"If councillor Duggins wants to sort this out like a man I'll be at Broadgate 3pm on Saturday - no weapons"
Nick
Administrator
I think they should start communicating in rap music videos like the yoot do nowadays.
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
..... and before the council cavalry arrives. Any conditions added retrospectively to the comments mean nothing, any public body making public commitments should caveat them at the time, unless they're completely stupid / complacent.
The Philosopher
Well-Known Member
The RICOH when built acted as a magnet for other commercial enterprises. Having ‘000s of extra footfall in an area adds value to the land.
Build a stadium, the area around it becomes saleable at a premium.
Build a rival stadium, devalue the RICOH.
SISU need to balance their books.
They should build a rival stadium (if CCC try to block then refer them to competition authorities - they have skin in the game & can be legally challenged).
When built, they can revalue & turn their losses into investments that yield rental (see Donald Trump about revaluation of buildings).
It frankly amazes me that SISU haven’t really put their foot into gear to move this forward.
There is no downside to a new stadium - the Ricoh isn’t the most atmospheric anyway.
Build a stadium, the area around it becomes saleable at a premium.
Build a rival stadium, devalue the RICOH.
SISU need to balance their books.
They should build a rival stadium (if CCC try to block then refer them to competition authorities - they have skin in the game & can be legally challenged).
When built, they can revalue & turn their losses into investments that yield rental (see Donald Trump about revaluation of buildings).
It frankly amazes me that SISU haven’t really put their foot into gear to move this forward.
There is no downside to a new stadium - the Ricoh isn’t the most atmospheric anyway.
Nick
Administrator
I don't think they have the money or the interest to build a new stadium.
I'd love somebody to do it though, just not looking that realistic unless they have money to burn!
vow
Well-Known Member
That's twice you've used this phrase, what does it mean?
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
Agreed, probably explains the council panic when the potential plan of developing the Butts was mooted
The Philosopher
Well-Known Member
The golden share is the key. That’s all they need.
Nick
Administrator
They need the money to build the stadium?
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
Not much gets past you mate
The Philosopher
Well-Known Member
Soton & Leicester stadium cost approx £50m (adjusted infl.)
The key isn’t the cost of borrowing (which could be a say, 2m / year) v rent savings / F&B / parking / sub rent to other nearby businesses / conferences / if they incorporate a public swimming baths etc.) it’s also how they can show the appreciating value of the asset on their balance sheet.
They are a hedge fund playing with other people’s money - they need to plug the gap.
Couple that with their ongoing court case, a rival stadium puts pressure on Wasps by devaluing their asset.
The golden share is key.
The Philosopher
Well-Known Member
I said before that SISU missed an opportunity to buy Cov Rugby.
They could have got around lots of council issues, developed the Butts, shared resources (physios, Training facilities, admin. Staff) and at the same time damaged Wasps if CRC became successful. Huge potential.
